A    C  R  I  T  I  Q  U  E 
OF  SOCIALISM 

By  E  D  W  a  R  D  F.ADAM  S 


JESSICA  PEIXOTTO 
864-11941 


A     CRITIQUE 
OF  SOCIALISM 


A    CRITIQUE 
OF    SOCIALISM 

READ  BEFORE 

THE  RUSKIN  CLUB  OF  OAKLAND 

CALIFORNIA 

BY 

EDWARD  F.  ADAMS 


t 


PAUL  ELDER  AND  COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS,  SAN   FRANCISCO 


Copyright,  I905 

by  Paul  Elder  and  Company 

San  Francisco 


The  Tomoyi  Pre8» 
Sao  Francitco 


A3.IC 


WITH  THE  COMPLIMENTS 

OF  THE  AUTHOR 

TO 

THE   RUSKIN   CLUB   OF  OAKLAND 


WHOSE  MEMBERS  LISTENED  SO 
PATIENTLY  TO  THE  READING 
OF  THIS  PAPER  AND  DANCED 
ON  IT  SO  BLITHELY  THERE- 
AFTER, AS  AN  INTIMATION  OF 
HIS  FERVENT  BELIEF  THAT  NO 
MORE  CHARMING  CONVOCATION 
OF  SOCIALISTS,  OR  ONE  MORE 
HOPELESSLY  ENTHRALLED  BY 
THEIR  DELUSIONS,  EXISTS 
ON   EARTH. 


418194 


To  the  Ruskin  Club :  — 

When  your  Mr.  Bamford  wrote  me  that  the 
Ruskin  Club  was  out  hunting  trouble^  and  that  if  I 
would  come  over  here  the  bad  men  of  the  club  would 
"do  me  up"  I  confess  my  first  impulse  was  to  excuse 
myself  from  the  profered  hospitality.  In  the  first 
place^  as  I  have  never  posed  as  a  social  champion  I 
had  no  reputation  at  stake  and  I  was  horribly  afraid. 
Secondly^  while  my  reading  of  Socialist  and  Anti- 
Socialist  literature  is  the  reverse  of  extensive^  I  am 
very  sure  that  nothing  can  be  said  for  or  against 
Socialism  which  has  not  already  been  said  many  times ^ 
and  so  well  said  that  a  fair  collection  of  Anti-Socialist 
literature  would  make  a  punching-bag  solid  enough 
to  absorb  the  force  of  the  most  energetic  of  pugilists. 
Finally^  the  inutility  of  such  a  sally  presented  itself 
forcibly^  since  there  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  record 
of  the  reformation  of  a  Socialist  afer  the  habit  is 
once  firmly  established.  But  while  at  first  these  con- 
siderations were  all  against  my  putting  on  my  armor y 
in  the  end  the  instinct  of  eating  and  fighting,  which 
is  as  forceful  in  the  modern  savage,  under  the  veneer 
of  civilization,  as  in  our  unpolished  progenitors,  over- 
came all  considerations  of  prudence,  and  here  I  am 
to  do  battle  according  to  my  ability.  I  promise  to 
strike  no  foul  blows  and  not  to  dodge  the  most 
portentous  of  whacks,  but  to  ride  straight  at  you  and 
hit  as  hard  as  I  can. 


A 

CRITIQUE    OF 

SOCIALISM 

WHILE  it  is  doubtless  true  that  no  one 
can  live  in  the  world  without  in  some 
degree  modifying  his  environment,  it 
is  also  true  that  the  influence  of  a  single  person 
is  seldom  appreciable  or  his  opinion  upon  social 
questions  of  sufficient  importance  to  excite  curi- 
osity, but  I  confess  that  when  I  listen  to  an  ad- 
dress intended  to  be  thoughtful,  I  enjoy  it 
more  or  at  any  rate  endure  it  better,  if  I  have 
some  knowledge  of  the  mental  attitude  of  the 
speaker  toward  his  general  subject.  Thinking 
that  possibly  those  who  hear  me  this  evening 
may  have  the  same  feeling,  I  begin  by  saying 
that  I  earnestly  favor  a  just  distribution  of 
comfort.  I  suppose  that  if  I  should  analyze  the 
mental  processes  leading  to  that  wish,  I  should 
find  toward  the  bottom  a  conviction  that  if  each 
had  his  due  I  should  be  better  off^  The  objec- 
tion to  the  Socialistic  program  is  that  it  would 
prevent  a  just  distribution  of  comfort. 

Some  years  ago   in  a  book  of  which   I   was 
guilty,  I  wrote  the  following:    "There  is  implied 

I 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

in  all  Socialistic  writing  the  doctrine  that  organ- 
ized man  can  override,  and  as  applied  to  himself, 
repeal  the  fundamental  law  of  Nature,  that  no 
species  can  endure  except  by  the  production  of 
more  individuals  than  can  be  supported,  of  whom 
the  weakest  must  die,  with  the  corollary  of  misery 
before  death.  Competitive  Society  tends  to  the 
death  of  the  weakest.  Socialistic  Society  would 
tend  to  the  preservation  of  the  weak.  There  can 
be  no  question  of  the  grandeur  of  this  concep- 
tion. To  no  man  is  given  nobler  aspirations  than 
to  him  who  conceives  of  a  just  distribution  of 
comfort  in  an  existence  not  idle,  but  without 
struggle.  It  would  be  a  Nirvana  glorious  only 
in  the  absence  of  sorrow,  but  still  perhaps  a 
happy  ending  for  our  race.  It  may,  after  all,  be 
our  destiny.  Nor  can  any  right-minded  man  for- 
bear his  tribute  to  the  good  which  Socialistic  agi- 
tation has  done.  No  man  can  tell  how  much 
misery  it  has  prevented,  or  how  much  it  will  pre- 
vent. So,  also,  while  we  may  regret  the  emotion- 
alism which  renders  even  so  keen  an  intellect  as 
that  of  Karl  Marx  an  unsafe  guide,  we  must, 
when  we  read  his  description  of  conditions  for 
which  he  sought  remedy,  confess  that  he  had 
been  less  a  man  had  he  been  less  emotional. 
The  man  whom  daily  contact  with  remediable 
misery  will  not  render  incompetent  to  always 
write  logically,  I  would  not  wish  to  know.      But 


A   CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

it  is  the  mission  of  such  men  to  arouse  action  and 
not  to  finally  determine  its  scope.  The  advocate 
may  not  be  the  judge.  My  animus  is  that  I 
heartily  desire  most  if  not  all  the  ends  proposed 
by  abstract  Socialism,  which  I  understand  to  be  a 
perfectly  just  distribution  of  comfort.  If,  there- 
fore, I  am  a  critic  of  Socialism,  I  am  a  friendly 
critic,  my  objections  to  its  program  resting  mainly 
on  a  conviction  that  it  would  not  remove,  but 
would  intensify,  the  evils  which  it  is  intended  to 
mitigate."  That  is  quite  sufficient  in  regard  to 
the  personal  equation. 

There  appear  to  be,  unfortunately,  as  many 
sects  of  Socialists  as  of  Christians,  and  if  "Cap- 
ital" were  a  more  clearly  written  book  I  should 
be  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  as  much  better 
for  Socialists  if  all  other  books  on  Socialism  were 
destroyed  as  it  would  be  for  Christians  and  Jews 
if  all  books  on  Theology  were  destroyed,  except 
the  Bible.  By  Socialism  I  mean  what  some  So- 
cialist writers  call  "Scientific  Socialism."  "Marx- 
ism," it  might  be  called.  "Humanism,"  I  think 
Marx  would  have  preferred  to  call  it,  and  I  be- 
lieve did  call  it,  for  he  dealt  with  abstract  doctrine 
applicable  to  men  and  not  to  nations,  and  his 
propaganda  was  the  "International."  Incident- 
ally, as  we  pass  on,  we  may  notice  in  this  connec- 
tion the  dilemma  of  American  Socialists  which 
they  do  not  seem  to  realize.     State  Socialism  has 

3 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

no  logical  place  in  a  Socialistic  program,  for  it 
merely  substitutes  the  more  deadly  competition 
of  nations  for  that  of  the  individual,  or  even 
"trust"  competition  now  existing,  while  Human- 
ism, or  Marxism,  tends  to  a  uniform  condition  of 
humanity  which  the  American  proletariat  would 
fight  tooth  and  nail  because  they  would  rightly 
believe  that  for  them  it  would  at  present  be  a 
leveling  down  instead  of  leveling  up. 

Karl  Marx  was,  of  course,  not  the  inventor 
of  Socialism,  nor  was  he,  so  far  as  I  know,  the 
originator  of  any  of  its  fundamental  doctrines, — 
the  doctrine,  for  example,  that  all  value  is  derived 
from  labor  was  part  of  mediaeval  clericism, —  but 
he  first  reduced  it  to  coherent  form  and  published 
it  as  a  complete  and  definite  system,  and  upon 
the  issues,  substantially  as  he  formulated  and  left 
them,  must  Socialism  stand  or  fall. 

I  must  assume  the  members  of  the  Ruskin 
Club  to  be  familiar  with  the  Marxian  fundamen- 
tal propositions,  which  I  do  not  state  because  I 
shall  confine  my  attack  to  the  three  derived  prop- 
ositions about  which  discussion  mainly  centers. 
We  certainly  do  not  want  an  exercise  in  serious 
dialectics  after  dinner,  but  I  will  say  in  passing 
that  I  do  not  think  that  any  of  his  fundamental 
propositions  are  true,  or  that  his  theory  of  value 
has  a  single  sound  leg  to  stand  on,  and  as  for 
what  he  calls   "surplus  value,"  I  doubt  whether 

4 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

there  be  such  a  thing.  At  any  rate  he  has  not 
proved  it,  nor  can  it  be  proved,  without  taking 
into  consideration  the  enormous  number  of  indus- 
trial failures,  as  well  as  the  more  limited  number 
of  industrial  successes  —  and  there  are  no  data 
for  that  purpose.  I  may  also  mention  as  what 
seems  to  me  a  fatal  flaw  in  Socialistic  philosophy, 
its  concentration  upon  the  conditions  of  industrial 
society,  without  adequate  conception  of  a  pro- 
vision for  the  requirements  of  agriculture.  In- 
dustrialism and  commercialism  are  doutless 
conveniences  essential  to  our  present  civiliza- 
tion; but  if  every  factory  and  all  commerce  were 
blotted  from  the  earth  the  world  would  go  right 
along,  and  when  the  necessary  millions  had  per- 
ished in  the  adjustment,  those  remaining  would 
be  as  happy  as  ever.  Mankind  adjusts  itself  to 
new  environments  very  readily.  We  here  in  cities 
talking  wisely  on  these  things  are  wholly  unnec- 
essary. The  farmer  is  essential,  because  without 
him  we  should  starve.  Nobody  else  is  essential. 
We  must  not  get  the  big- head.  Economical 
farming  on  Socialistic  methods  is  impossible,  and 
any  successful  system  of  Social  betterment  must 
be  based  on  the  requirements  of  economical  farm- 
ing. Finally,  to  conclude  this  preliminary  recon- 
naissance, the  attitude  of  Socialism  to  religion  is 
wholly  unjustifiable.  I  am  profoundly  convinced 
that  the  groveling  heathen,  who  in  sincerity  bows 

5 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

down  to  a  "bloomin*  idol  made  of  mud,"  as  Kip- 
ling puts  it,  has  in  him  the  propagation  of  a 
nobler  and  happier  posterity  than  the  most  cul- 
tured cosmopolitan  who  is  destitute  of  reverence. 
The  church  and  the  synagogue  are  the  only  exist- 
ing institutions  of  modern  society  which  are 
engaged  in  the  work  of  upbuilding  and  strength- 
ening that  rugged  personal  character  which  is  the 
only  sure  foundation  of  any  worthy  civilization. 

I  do  not  discuss  the  fundamental  Marxian 
propositions  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place. 
It  would  be  laborious  beyond  measure  for  me, 
and  dreary  beyond  measure  for  you.  For  ex- 
ample, the  bottom  stone  in  the  foundation  of  the 
sub-basement  of  the  Marxian  edifice  is  the  prop- 
osition that  the  equation 

X  commodity  A=y  commodity  B 
essentially  differs  from  the  equation 

y  Commodity  B  =  X  Commodity  A. 

Now,  a  discussion  whether  there  is  between 
these  two  equations  a  difference  which  it  is  so- 
cially necessary  to  take  account  of,  is  a  thing  to 
be  put  into  books  where  it  can  be  skipped,  and 
not  imposed  in  cold  blood  even  on  intellectual 
enemies.  Personally  I  do  not  believe  there  is, 
for  I  do  not  think  that  social  phenomena  can  be 
dealt  with  by  the  rigorous  methods  of  mathe- 
matics. One  can  never  be  sure  that  the  unknown 
quantities   are    all    accounted  for.      But  whether 

6 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

this  or  similar  propositions  are  essential  to  the 
discussion  of  the  theory  of  surplus  value  or  not, 
I  do  not  describe  them  because  they  are  of  no 
particular  importance. 

Socialism  is  not  based  upon  the  Marxian 
theory  of  value,  but  the  Marxian  theory  of  value 
was  evolved  in  an  endeavor  to  fix  a  scientific  basis 
for  a  popular  movement  already  fully  under  way. 
Socialism  is  not  based  on  reason,  but  emotion; 
not  on  reflection,  but  desire;  it  is  not  scientific, 
but  popular.  If  every  Socialist  on  earth  should 
concede  that  the  Marxian  theory  of  surplus  value 
had  been  knocked  into  smithereens,  it  would  have 
no  more  effect  on  the  progress  of  Socialism  than 
the  gentle  zephyr  of  a  June  day  on  the  hide  of  a 
rhinoceros.  Socialism  must  be  attacked  in  the 
derived  propositions  about  which  popular  discus- 
sion centers,  and  the  assault  must  be,  not  to 
prove  that  the  doctrines  are  scientifically  unsound, 
but  that  they  tend  to  the  impoverishment  and 
debasement  of  the  masses.  These  propositions 
are  three,  and  I  lay  down  as  my  thesis — for  I 
abhor  defensive  warfare  —  that 

Rent  is  rights 
Interest  is  righty 
Profits  are  rights 

and  that  they  are  all   three  ethically  and  econom- 
ically justified,  and  are  in   fact  essential   to   the 

7 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

happiness  and  progress  of  the  race,  and  more 
especially  to  those  who  labor  with  their  hands. 

Now,  first,  rent:  I  confess  that  I  have  no 
patience  with  any  one  who  claims,  as  an  inherent 
right,  the  exclusive  ownership  of  any  part  of  the 
earth.  He  might  as  well  claim  ownership  in  a 
section  of  air.  In  this  I  am  very  certain  that  I 
have  the  hearty  concurrence  of  every  member  of 
this  Club.  I  am  so  sure  of  this,  in  fact,  that  I  am 
going  to  make  that  assumption,  in  which  we  all 
agree,  the  starting  point  of  a  little  dialogue,  in 
which,  after  the  manner  of  Plato,  I  will  put  Soc- 
rates at  one  end  of  the  discussion,  and  some  of  his 
friends,  whom  we  will  suppose  to  be  Phaedo,  and 
Crito,  and  Simmias,  and  the  rest  at  the  other,  and 
we  will  let  Socrates  and  Phaedo  carry  on  the  con- 
versation, which  might  run  as  follows: 

Socrates  —  We  are  agreed,  then,  that  no 
man  has  any  right  inherent  in  himself  to  the 
ownership  of  land. 

Ph^do  —  Certainly,  we  agree  to  that.  Such 
a  thing  is  absurd,  for  the  earth  is  a  gift  to  the 
human  race,  and  not  to  particular  men. 

Socrates  —  I  am  glad  that  you  think  so, 
and  am  sure  we  shall  continue  to  agree.  And  if 
no  one  man  has  any  right  to  exclusive  ownership 
of  land,  neither  have  any  two  men,  since  it  is 
plain  that  neither  could  convey  to  himself  and 
another  any  right  which  he  did   not  possess,  nor 

8 


A    CRITIQJJE    OF    SOCIALISM 

could  two  men  together  by  any  means  get  lawful 
title  to  what  neither  was  entitled  to  hold. 

Phtedo  —  You  are  doubtless  right,  Socrates. 
I  do  not  think  any  man  could  dispute  that. 

Socrates  —  And  if  neither  one  man  nor  two 
men  can  acquire  lawful  title  to  land,  neither  for 
the  same  reason  could  any  number,  no  matter 
how  great,  acquire  lawful  title. 

Ph^do  —  That  certainly  follows  from  what 
we  have  already  agreed  to. 

Socrates — And  it  makes  no  difference  how 
small  or  how  great  a  portion  of  land  may  be. 
No  man  and  no  number  of  men  can  acquire  law- 
ful ownership  of  it. 

PHyEDO  —  That  is  also  so  plainly  true  that 
it  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  say  it.  It  cer- 
tainly makes  no  difference  whether  the  land  be  a 
square  furlong  or  a  continent. 

Socrates — As  you  say,  Phaedo,  that  is  very 
evident.  The  earth  belongs  to  mankind,  and  all 
men  are  by  nature  sharers  in  its  benefits. 

Ph^do  —  I  trust  that  you  will  understand 
that  I  agree  with  you  in  that,  and  so  make  an 
end  of  it. 

Socrates  —  It  is  perhaps  best  that  we  be 
very  sure  that  we  agree  as  we  go  on,  so  that  if  we 
should  at  any  time  disagree,  we  do  not  need  to 
go  far  back  to  find  where  our  difference  began. 
The  earth   is  the   property  of  men  in  common, 

9 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

and  each  has  an  undivided  share  in  its   posses- 
sion. 

Ph^do  —  That  is  another  thing  too  plain 
to  be  disputed. 

Socrates  —  And  when  men  hold  property 
in  common,  each  has  as  much  right  to  all  parts 
of  it  as  another. 

Ph^do  —  To  be  sure.  I  do  not  see  why 
we  need  waste  time  in  mentioning  things  so  plain 
and  so  trivial. 

Socrates  —  And  when  men  own  property 
they  may  do  with  it  as  they  please,  and  property 
which  men  own  jointly  they  may  visit  and  remain 
upon,  the  one  as  much  as  the  other. 

Ph^do  —  Unquestionably  that  is  so,  and  we 
should  do  better  to  go  to  sleep  in  the  shade, 
somewhere,  than  to  spend  time  in  repeating  things 
so  simple. 

Socrates  —  Be  patient,  Phaedo,  and  in  time 
we  may  find  somewhat  wherein  we  do  not  so  per- 
fectly agree.  But  whatever  property  men  have 
the  right  to  visit  and  remain  upon  they  are  always 
free  to  use  in  common  with  their  fellow  owners. 

PhvEdo — Certainly.  Will  you  never,  O  Soc- 
rates, have  done  with  this? 

Socrates  —  And  Chinamen,  therefore,  have 
full  right  to  come  and  live  in  California. 

Ph^do  (and  the  rest)  —  We  will  all  see 
them  in  hell  first. 

lO 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

And  I  am  very  certain  that  every  Socialist  in 
California  will  agree  both  with  the  premises  and 
the  conclusion. 

But  we  might  try  another  course  of  reasoning 
by  which  we  may  perhaps  more  easily  reach  the 
predetermined  conclusion,  and  we  will  let  the 
same  parties  carry  on  the  dialogue,  which  is  a 
most  delightful  way  of  reasoning  when,  as  in  the 
case  of  Plato  and  myself,  the  same  person  con- 
ducts both  sides  of  the  discussion.  It  might  run 
in  this  way: 

Ph^do — We  have  come,  Socrates,  to  dis- 
cuss with  you,  if  you  will  permit  us,  the  question 
of  the  ownership  of  land.  Crito  and  Hippias 
and  myself  and  others  were  considering  that  sub- 
ject the  other  day,  and  we  were  not  able  to  agree. 
Hippocrates,  whom  you  know,  has  lately  re- 
turned from  the  region  of  Mount  Olympus,  and  as 
he  was  hunting  one  day  on  the  lower  slopes  of  the 
mountain,  he  came,  haply,  upon  a  beautiful  vale, 
fertile  and  well  watered,  wherein  was  no  habita- 
tion or  sign  of  man.  The  soft  breezes  blew 
gently  over  the  rich  green  plain  whereon  the  red 
deer  grazed  peacefully  and  turned  not  at  his  ap- 
proach. And  when  Hippocrates  returned  from 
his  hunt  he  found  upon  inquiry  that  no  man  of 
the  region  knew  of  that  vale  or  had  ever  heard 
thereof.  So,  as  he  had  marked  the  entrance 
thereto,  he  returned   thither  with   the  intent  to 


A    CRITIQUE    OF    SOCIALISM 

remain  there  for  a  space.  And  remaining  there 
through  the  warm  summer  he  fenced  in  the  vale 
and  the  deer  in  it,  and  built  him  an  house,  and 
remained  there  a  full  year.  But  certain  concerns 
of  his  family  at  that  time  constrained  Hippoc- 
rates to  return  to  Athens,  and  since  he  can  no 
more  live  in  his  vale  he  offered  to  sell  it  to  Hip- 
parchus  for  a  talent  of  silver  for  a  place  to  keep 
summer  boarders.  And  Hipparchus  was  content; 
but  when  they  repaired  to  the  Demosion  to  ex- 
change the  price  for  the  deed,  Hippocrates  was 
unable  to  produce  any  parchment  showing  his 
title  to  the  vale.  And  when  he  was  unable  to  do 
that,  Hipparchus  would  not  pay  down  his  silver, 
until  he  could  make  further  inquiry.  The  next 
day,  we  all,  meeting  at  the  house  of  Phidias,  fell 
to  debating  whether  Hippocrates  owned  the  land 
and  could  sell  it  to  Hipparchus.  And  some  said 
one  thing  and  some  another,  and  in  the  end  we 
agreed  that  when  some  of  us  were  next  together, 
we  would  go  to  the  house  of  Socrates,  and  if  he 
were  content,  we  would  discuss  the  matter  with 
him.  And  today  happening  to  so  meet  we  have 
come  to  you,  Socrates,  and  would  be  glad  to  hear 
whether  you  think  Hippocrates  owns  that  vale, 
and  may  sell  it  or  no. 

Socrates  —  You  are  very  welcome,  Phaedo, 
and  your  friends,  and  as  for  the  matter  you 
name,  I  shall  be  glad  to  talk  of  it  with  you  and 

12 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

see  if  we  can  come  to  some  understanding  of  it. 
But  before  we  can  proceed  in  the  discussion,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  find  some  starting  point  upon 
which  we  can  all  agree,  because  until  we  agree,  at 
the  beginning,  upon  some  one  thing  pertaining 
to  the  matter,  as  certain  and  not  to  be  doubted, 
discussion  is  useless,  but  if  we  can  find  such  a 
thing,  which  none  of  us  doubt,  we  may  be  able 
to  make  something  of  the  matter.  I  propose, 
therefore,  O  Phaedo,  that  you  propound  some 
one  statement  which  all  you  who  have  been  dis- 
cussing the  matter  believe. 

Ph^do  —  Of  a  truth,  Socrates,  we  discussed 
the  matter  till  the  sun  went  down,  but  I  do  not 
remember  any  one  thing  to  which  we  all  agreed 
except  that  there  is  such  a  vale  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Olympus,  as  Hippocrates  describes,  and 
that  he  lived  therein  for  a  year.  That  we  believe 
because  Hippocrates  so  told  us,  and  all  Athens 
knows  Hippocrates  for  a  truthful  man. 

Socrates  —  That  is  something,  for  all  truth 
is  useful;  but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  such 
a  truth  as  will  well  serve  for  a  foundation  from 
which  we  may  penetrate,  as  one  might  say,  the 
very  bowels  of  the  subject.  I  pray  you  to  pro- 
pound some  other. 

Ph^do — Truly,  Socrates,  I  cannot,  nor  can 
we  any  of  us,  for  upon  nothing  else  pertaining  to 
the  matter  are  we  able  to  agree. 

13 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

Socrates  —  If  it  please  you,  then,  I  will  pro- 
pound a  saying  and  see  if  you  agree  with  me. 

Ph^do — We  shall   be  very  glad  if  you  will. 

Socrates  —  I  suggest,  then,  that  we  begin  by 
agreeing,  if  we  are  able  to  do  so,  that  the  gods 
have  given  the  earth  to  man  for  his  use. 

Ph^do  —  Surely  that  seems  to  be  true. 

Socrates  —  I  am  glad  that  you  think  favor- 
ably of  it,  but  that  is  not  sufficient  if  we  are  to 
reason  upon  it,  because  that  upon  which  we  found 
our  argument  must  be  what  we  accept  as  absolute 
truth. 

Ph^do  —  I  think  the  earth  was  made  for 
mankind,  but  if  in  our  conversation  something 
should  also  seem  true,  and  yet  contradictory  to 
that,  I  know  not  what  I  should  think. 

Socrates  —  Let  us,  then,  think  of  something 
else:  The  earth  is  at  any  rate  surely  for  the  use 
of  some  beings.  The  mighty  Atlas  would  never 
sustain  it  upon  his  broad  shoulders  if  it  did 
nobody  good. 

Ph^do — That,  at  least,  is  certain,  Socrates. 

Socrates — And  it  must  be  for  beings  who 
can  make  use  of  it  and  enjoy  it. 

Ph^do — That  also  is  true. 

Socrates — And  beings  which  can  use  and 
enjoy  the  earth  must  be  living  beings. 

Ph^do  —  Nobody  will  deny  that. 

Socrates  —  And  there  are   no  living  things 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

except  the  gods,  mankind,  the  lower  animals,  and 
plants. 

Ph^do  —  I  agree  to  that. 

Socrates  —  And  it  is  plain  that  the  gods  did 
not  build  the  earth  for  themselves,  for  they  do 
not  live  upon  it,  except  on  Olympus,  and  nowhere 
does  the  earth  produce  ambrosia  and  nectar,  which 
are  the  food  of  the  gods. 

Ph^do — That  is  true,  for  the  gods  live  in 
the  heavens  and  in  the  nether  world,  and  not 
upon  the  earth. 

Socrates  —  And  the  plants  do  not  use  the 
earth,  or  enjoy  it,  although  they  live  upon  it,  but 
they  are  themselves  used  and  enjoyed  by  man 
and  beasts. 

Ph^do  —  Certainly  the  earth  was  not  made 
for  the  plants. 

Socrates  —  And  surely  as  between  man  and 
the  lower  animals,  the  earth  was  intended  for  man. 

Ph^do  —  Certainly,  that  is  what  we  think, 
but  I  do  not  know  what  the  lion  and  the  horse 
and  the  ox  might  say,  for  they  certainly  use  the 
earth  and  enjoy  it. 

Socrates  —  But  man  is  superior  to  the  lower 
animals,  and  the  superior  cannot  be  subordinate 
to  the  inferior. 

Ph^do  —  I  do  not  know  how  we  can  tell 
which  is  superior.  The  primordial  cell  in  differ- 
entiating out  of  homogeneity  into  heterogeneity 

15 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

developed  different  qualities  in  different  beings, 
and  of  the  organs  integrated  from  the  heterogen- 
eous elements  each  has  its  use  and  many  are 
essential  to  life.  In  man  the  brain  is  more 
powerful  than  in  the  ox,  but  in  the  ox  the  stomach 
is  more  powerful  than  in  man,  and  while  both 
stomach  and  brain  are  necessary,  yet  is  one  with 
a  weak  brain  and  strong  stomach  doubtless  hap- 
pier than  one  with  a  weak  stomach  and  strong 
brain.  Is  it  not,  then,  true  that  the  stomach  is 
nobler  than  the  brain,  and  if  so,  then  the  pig  and 
the  lion  and  the  goat,  which  have  strong  stomachs, 
nobler  than  man,  whose  stomach  could  in  nowise 
digest  carrion,  or  alfalfa,  or  tin  cans,  and  therefore 
may  it  not  be  that  the  earth  was  made  for  the 
lower  animals,  who  can  use  more  of  its  products 
than  man  ? 

Socrates — That  is  a  deep  thought,  O  Phaedo, 
which  shows  that  you  are  well  up  in  your  Spencer, 
although  shy  in  your  surgery,  for  it  is  true  that 
the  stomach  has  been  removed  from  a  man  who 
lived  happy  ever  after,  while  neither  man  nor 
beast  ever  lived  a  minute  after  his  brains  were 
knocked  out;  but  is  it  not  true  that  it  is  by  the 
function  of  the  brain  that  man  makes  his  powers 
more  effective  than  those  of  animals  stronger 
than  he,  so  that  he  is  able  to  bear  rule  over  all 
the  lower  tnimals  and  either  exterminate  them 
from  the  earth  or  make  them  to  serve  him? 

i6 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

Ph^do — Yes,  that  is  true. 

Socrates  —  And  we  cannot  say  that  the 
earth  was  made  for  beasts  which  themselves  are 
made  to  serve  the  purpose  of  man,  for  as  plants 
are  consumed  by  beasts,  so  beasts  are  consumed 
by  man  who  acquires  for  his  own  use  and  enjoy- 
ment whatever  power  is  generated  by  the  organs 
of  all  other  living  things. 

Ph^do — That  is  true,  and  I  can  now  see 
that  the  earth  was  not  made  by  the  gods  for 
themselves,  or  for  plants  or  beasts. 

Socrates  — Therefore  it  appears  to  me  that 
it  must  have  been  made  for  man. 

Ph^do — That  is  true,  and  I  now  agree  that 
the  earth  was  made  for  man. 

Socrates  — Then,  since  we  have  found  a  com- 
mon starting  point,  we  may  go  on  with  our  con- 
versation. We  have  proved  that  the  earth  was 
made  for  man,  because  man,  by  powers  inherent 
in  himself,  can  overcome  all  other  living  things 
on  the  earth  and  subject  them  to  his  uses. 

Ph^do — Yes,  we  have  proved  that. 

Socrates — And  the  real  source  of  his  king- 
ship is  power. 

Ph^do — That  must  be  true. 

Socrates — And  force  is  power  applied  to 
some  object,  so  that  power  and  force  may  be 
spoken  of  as  the  same  thing. 

Ph^do  —  Certainly. 

17 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

Socrates — And  where  power  lies,  there  and 
there  only  is  sovereignty,  and  where  power  ends 
sovereignty  finds  its  limit.  So  that,  for  example, 
if  the  lion  could  subdue  man  and  the  other  ani- 
mals, the  earth  would  be  for  the  use  of  the  lion. 

PHyEDO — That  is  plain. 

Socrates  —  And  if  a  company  of  men  should 
find  an  island  and  go  and  live  upon  it  and  be 
strong  enough  to  subdue  the  wild  animals  and 
keep  out  other  men,  that  island  would  be  for 
their  use. 

PHi^DO — That  follows,  because  sovereignty 
goes  with  power  exercised  in  force. 

Socrates  —  And  so  if  one  man  should  find 
a  vacant  space  and  take  possession,  it  would  be 
his. 

PHi^DO — That  is  true. 

Socrates — And  what  belongs  to  man,  man 
may  dispose  of  as  he  will. 

Ph^do — All  men  agree  to  that. 

Socrates — And,  therefore,  since  Hippocrates 
has  found  a  vacant  space  on  the  earth  and  taken 
possession  thereof,  and  no  man  disputes  his  pos- 
session, it  is  his  and  he  may  sell  it. 

Phtedo — That  is  certainly  true,  and  I  do 
not  doubt  that  Hipparchus  will  now  pay  down 
his  talent  of  silver  and  take  over  the  vale  in  the 
Olympian  forest. 

Socrates  —  And    if    instead     of   finding   an 

i8 


A    CRITIQUE    OF    SOCIALISM 

island  the  company  of  men  had  found  an  entire 
continent  it  would  be  theirs  if  they  were  strong 
enough  to  keep  it. 

Ph/edo  —  Surely  that  is  so,  for  power  is  but 
concentrated  ability  to  enjoy,  and  where  most 
power  lies,  there  lies  most  ability  to  enjoy,  and 
therefore  the  highest  possible  aggregate  of  human 
happiness,  in  the  attainment  of  which  the  will  of 
the  gods  shall  be  done. 

Socrates — And  if  a  company  can  take  part 
of  a  continent,  but  not  the  whole,  whatever  they 
are  able  to  take  is  theirs. 

Ph^do  —  Undoubtedly. 

Socrates — And  what  is  theirs  is  not  the 
property  of  others. 

Ph.«do  —  By  no  means. 

Socrates  —  And  if  it  does  not  belong  to 
others,  others  may  not  lawfully  use  it. 

Ph^do — Surely  not. 

Socrates  —  And  they  who  do  own  it  may 
prevent  others  from  entering  it. 

Ph^do  —  Surely,  for  hath  not  the  poet  said: 

"  That  they  shall  take  who  have  the  power. 
And  they  may  keep  who  can." 

Socrates — Therefore  it  is  plain  that  the 
United  States  may  keep  Chinamen  out  of 
America. 

Ph^do — There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it  what- 
ever. 

19 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

Socrates  —  And  Chinese  may  keep  Ameri- 
cans out  of  China. 

Ph^do — That  is  another  story.  One  must 
never  let  his  logic  get  the  better  of  him. 

And  so  we  might  play  with  these  great  sub- 
jects forever,  with  reasoning  as  leaky  as  a  sieve, 
but  good  enough  to  catch  the  careless  or  the  un- 
trained. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  lectures  which  I 
ever  listened  to  was  one  before  the  Economic 
League  of  San  Francisco  on  the  "  Dialectics  of 
Socialism."  The  lecturer  was  a  very  acute  man, 
who  would  not  for  one  moment  be  deceived  by 
the  sophistry  of  my  Socrates  and  Phaedo,  but 
who,  himself,  made  willing  captives  of  his  hear- 
ers by  similar  methods.  I  was  unable  to  hear  all 
his  address,  but  when  I  reluctantly  left,  it  ap- 
peared to  me  that  he  was  expecting  to  prove  that 
Socialism  must  be  sound  philosophy  because  it 
was  contradictory  to  all  human  observation,  ex- 
perience, judgment  and  the  dictates  of  sound 
common  sense  —  and  his  large  audience  was 
plainly  enough  with  him. 

The  dialectics  of  the  schoolmen  or  their 
equivalent  are  useless  in  Social  discussion.  Social 
phenomena  do  not  lend  themselves  to  the  rigor- 
ous formulas  of  mathematics  and  logic,  for  the 
human  intellect  is  unable  to  discern  and  grasp  all 
the  factors  of  these   problems.      My  travesty  of 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

Plato  was  intended  to  illustrate  the  difficulty  of 
close  reasoning  on  such  topics. 

Neither,  on  the  other  hand,  are  we  to  blindly 
follow  the  impulses  of  emotion  which  lead  us  to 
jump  at  a  conclusion,  support  it  with  what  reason 
we  can,  but  reach  it  in  any  event.  Emotion  is 
the  source  of  social  power,  but  power  unrestrained 
and  undirected  is  dangerous.  Energy  created  by 
the  sight  of  distress  must  be  controlled  by  reason 
or  it  will  not  relieve  distress.  And  by  reason  I 
do  not  mean  social  syllogisms,  of  whose  premises 
we  are  always  uncertain,  but  conclusions  half  un- 
consciously formed  in  the  mind  as  the  result  of 
human  experience  operating  on  human  feeling — 
the  practical  wisdom  which  we  call  common  sense. 
Human  conduct,  individual  and  aggregate,  must 
be  regulated  and  determined  by  the  consensus  of 
the  judgment  of  the  wisest  made  effective  through 
its  gradual  acceptance  as  the  judgment  of  the  ma- 
jority. Private  ownership  of  land,  with  its  ac- 
companying rent,  is  justified,  not  by  an  imaginary 
inherent  right  in  the  individual,  which  has  no  real 
existence  and  so  cannot  be  conveyed,  but  because 
the  interests  of  society  require  the  stimulus  to 
effiart  which  private  ownership  and  private  owner- 
ship only  can  give.  And  here  I  shall  leave  this 
point  without  the  further  illustration  and  elabora- 
tion with  which  I  could  torment  you  longer  than 
you  could  keep  awake.     And  with  the  other  two 

21 


A    CRITIQUE    OF    SOCIALISM 

points  I  will  confine  myself  to  the  most  con- 
densed forms  of  statement. 

Interest — Socialists  and  Non-Socialists  agree 
that  what  a  man  makes  is  his.  Socialists  and  I 
agree  that  every  man  is  entitled  to  his  just  share 
of  the  Social  dividend.  I  believe,  and  in  this  I 
suppose  that  Socialists  would  agree  with  me,  that 
when  a  man  gets  his  annual  dividend  he  may  use 
it,  or  keep  it  for  future  use.  If,  while  he  does 
not  use  his  dividend,  or  the  product  of  his  labor, 
he  permits  others  to  use  it  to  their  profit,  it  seems 
to  me  that  he  is  entitled  to  some  satisfaction  in 
compensation  for  his  sacrifice.  I  believe  it  to 
the  interest  of  society  that  he  have  it.  It  is  by 
individual  thrift  that  society  accumulates,  and  it 
is  wise  to  encourage  thrift. 

If  I  build  a  mill  and,  falling  sick,  cannot  use 
it,  it  is  fair  that  he  who  does  use  it  shall  pay  me 
for  my  sacrifice  in  building  it.  If  I  forego  pos- 
sible satisfactions  of  any  kind,  those  whom  I  per- 
mit to  enjoy  them  should  recompense  me.  And 
that  is  interest.  Its  foundation  as  a  right  rests 
not  only  on  those  natural  sentiments  of  justice 
with  which  the  normal  man  everywhere  is  en- 
dowed and  behind  which  we  cannot  go,  but  on 
the  interest  of  society  to  encourage  the  creation 
of  savings  funds  to  be  employed  for  the  benefit 
of  society. 

Profits  —  Private   profit  is   far   less   a  private 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

right  than  a  public  necessity.  Its  absence  would 
involve  a  waste  which  society  could  not  endure. 
With  individual  operations  controlled  by  fallible 
men  enormous  waste  is  inevitable.  It  is  essential 
to  society  that  this  waste  be  minimized.  No  in- 
dustrial or  commercial  enterprise  can  go  on  with- 
out risk.  Profit  is  the  compensation  for  risk. 
One  of  the  things  which  I  believe,  but  which 
cannot  be  proved,  is  that  from  the  dawn  of  his- 
tory losses  to  individuals  by  which  society  gained 
have  exceeded  profits  to  individuals,  and  the  ex- 
cess of  these  losses  is  the  social  accumulation, 
increased,  of  course,  by  residues  left  after  indi- 
viduals have  got  what  they  could.  Whitney  died 
poor,  but  mankind  has  the  cotton-gin.  Bell  died 
rich,  but  there  is  a  profit  to  mankind  in  the  tele- 
phone. Socialists  propose  to  assume  risks  and 
absorb  profits.  I  do  not  believe  society  could 
aflford  this.  I  am  profoundly  convinced  that  un- 
der the  Socialist  program  the  inevitable  waste 
would  be  so  enormously  increased  as  to  result  in 
disaster  approaching  a  social  cataclysm.  This  is 
an  old  argument  whose  validity  Socialists  scout. 
Nevertheless  I  believe  it  sound.  The  number  of 
these  whose  intellectual  and  physical  strength  is 
sufficient  for  the  wisest  direction  of  great  enter- 
prises is  very  small.  Some  who  are  interested  in 
our  great  industrial  trusts  carry  heavy  insurance 
on  the  life  of  Mr.  Morgan,  lest  he  die  and  leave 

23 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

no  successor.  If  the  natural  ability  is  found  its 
possessor  will  necessarily  lack  the  knowledge 
which  Mr.  Morgan  has  accumulated,  and  in  the 
light  of  which  he  directs  his  operations.  It  is 
essential  that  great  operations  —  and  the  business 
of  the  future  will  be  conducted  on  a  great  scale  — 
be  directed  by  great  wisdom  and  power.  The 
possessors  of  high  qualities  we  now  discover  by 
the  trying-out  process.  They  can  be  discovered 
in  no  other  way,  and  great  effort  can  be  secured 
only  by  the  hope  of  great  reward.  Until  human 
nature  changes  we  can  expect  nothing  different. 
Socialism  implies  popular  selection  of  industrial 
leadership.  Wherever  tried  thus  far  in  the  world's 
history  there  has  usually  been  abject  failure.  The 
mass  can  choose  leaders  in  emotion  but  not  di- 
rectors of  industry.  The  selection  of  experts  by 
the  non-expert  can  be  wise  only  by  accident.  If 
the  selection  is  not  popular,  then  Socialism  is 
tyranny,  as  its  enemies  charge.  If  it  be  popular, 
or  in  so  far  as  it  is  popular,  direction  is  likely  to 
fall  to  the  great  persuaders  and  not  to  the  great 
directors.  Never  did  a  "people's  party"  yet 
escape  the  control  of  the  unscrupulous.  No  po- 
litical movements  result  in  so  much  political  and 
social  rascality  as  so-called  popular  movements 
originated  by  earnest  and  honest  men.  I  see  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  Socialistic  direction  of 
industrial  affairs  in  any  city  would  be  directed 

24 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

from  any  other  source  than  the  back  rooms  of 
the  saloons  where  poHtical  movements  are  now 
shaped.  If  the  Socialistic  program  were  to  go 
into  effect  tomorrow  morning  there  would  be  here 
tonight  neither  lecturer  nor  audience.  The  good 
dinner  would  remain  untasted  in  the  ovens. 
Every  mortal  soul  of  us  would  be  scooting  from 
one  social  magnate  to  another  to  assure  that  we 
were  on  the  slate  for  the  soft  jobs  and  that  nobody 
was  crowding  us  off.  I  have  no  faith  in  human 
nature  except  as  it  is  constantly  strengthened  and 
purified  by  struggle.  That  struggle  is  an  irre- 
pressible conflict  existing  in  all  nature,  and  from 
which  man  cannot  escape.  It  is  better  for  man- 
kind that  it  go  on  openly  and  in  more  or  less 
accord  with  known  rules  of  warfare  than  in  the 
secret  conspiring  chambers  of  the  class  which  in 
the  end  controls  popular  movement.  All  serious 
conflict  involves  evil,  but  it  is  also  strengthening 
to  the  race.  I  wish  misery  could  be  banished 
from  the  world,  but  I  fear  that  it  cannot  be  so 
banished.  I  have  little  confidence  in  human 
ability  to  so  thoroughly  comprehend  the  structure 
and  functions  of  the  social  body  as  to  correctly 
foretell  the  steps  in  its  evolution,  or  prescribe  con- 
stitutional remedies  which  will  banish  social  dis- 
ease. If  I  were  a  social  reformer — and  were  I 
with  my  present  knowledge  still  an  ingenuous 
youth   in  the  fulness  of  strength  with   my  life 

25 


41  Ri  qd 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

before  me  I  do  not  know  that  I  would  not  be  a 
social  reformer — I  would  profess  myself  a  social 
agnostic,  and  prosecute  my  mission  by  the 
methods  of  the  opportunist.  I  would  endeavor 
to  direct  the  social  ax  to  the  most  obvious  and 
obtrusive  roots  of  the  social  evil,  and  having 
removed  them  and  watched  the  result,  would 
then  determine  what  to  do  next.  Possibly  I 
would  endeavor  to  begin  with  the  abolition  of 
wills  and  collateral  inheritance,  and  so  limiting 
direct  inheritance  that  no  man  able  to  work  should 
escape  its  necessity  by  reason  of  the  labor  of  his 
forefathers.  I  might  say  that  I  recognized  the 
vested  rights  of  the  Astors  to  the  soil  on  Man- 
hattan Island,  but  that  I  recognized  no  right  as 
vested  in  beings  yet  unborn.  I  might  say  that 
it  was  sufficient  stimulation  and  reward  for  the 
most  eminent  social  endeavor  to  select,  within 
reason,  the  objects  of  public  utility  to  which 
resulting  accumulations  should  be  applied  and  to 
superintend  during  one's  lifetime  their  application 
to  those  purposes.  I  might  think  in  this  way, 
and  might  not,  were  I  an  enthusiastic  social 
reformer  in  the  heyday  of  youth,  but  it  appears 
to  me  now  that  at  any  rate  we  shall  make  most 
progress  toward  ultimate  universal  happiness  if 
we  recognize  that  out  of  the  increasing  strenu- 
ousness  of  our  conflict  there  is  coming  constantly 
increasing  comfort    and   better   division   thereof, 

26 


A    CRITIQUE    OF   SOCIALISM 

and  if  we  direct  that  portion  of  our  energies 
which  we  devote  to  the  service  of  mankind 
toward  such  changes  in  the  direction  of  the 
social  impulse  as  can  be  made  without  impairing 
the  force  of  the  evolutionary  movement,  rather 
than  to  those  which  involve  the  reversal  of  the 
direction  of  the  force  with  the  resulting  danger 
of  explosion  and  collapse. 


*7 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


JUN  1 3  19BS 


JUN  1  3  I960 


•MRL    MAR  17)^^9 


\9t» 


0 


uAnsnTS 


PH 


MflTj  3  !975 
APR    61988 


RENEWAL 

10  mi 


Form  L-9 
25ni-2,'«(5203) 


!]^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIKOKNJ 
AT 
LOS  ANGELES 


T  TDt>  A  OV 


3  1158  00935  6949 


SOUTHER^i  Rf  GION.fil  LIBRARY  FACIl  ITY 


AA    000  406  614    8 


